When you have two or more parties saying diametrically opposite things, each citing the same texts to justify themselves, it's pretty damn arbitrary. Each side will say they have so many years of scholarship backing their position, so that turns out to be meaningless.
Reading and citing the same book, Christians have been debating whether Christ was poor for damn near a thousand years. What's more likely, they're getting their opinions from the text, or they're using the text to justify whatever their opinion already was?
Reading and citing the same book, Christians have been debating whether Christ was poor for damn near a thousand years. What's more likely, they're getting their opinions from the text, or they're using the text to justify whatever their opinion already was?